An example is when he raises the issue of morality in debates about the existence of God. Craig says that without God there can be no objective morality. Now, even if you believe in objective morality, this is clearly nonsense, but it can some explaining. If a full explanation can't given in a few minutes, this leaves Craig's opponent looking like they are in defence of baby-killing and all kinds of horrors because Craig then comes across as someone who has moral standards!I do think that a problem with these sorts of debates is that it is possible to make emotionally appealing pro-religion arguments very quickly, whereas unpicking what is wrong with them takes much more time.
Not that all theistic debaters are tactically astute to this, but Craig undoubtedly is.